El SalvadorReconsidering the price of peace

WARPLANES flew over the capital. Ex-guerrillas waving red protest banners thronged the streets. On July 13th El Salvador’s supreme court struck down an amnesty law that had helped secure peace after 12 years of civil war. The law enacted in 1993 is unconstitutional, the court said, because it prevents victims of atrocities from seeking justice. But many Salvadoreans fear that justice will come at the expense of political stability.

Amnesty for crimes committed by both sides in the war, in which more than 75,000 people died, is almost the only point of agreement between the main political forces, the right-wing ARENA party and the left-wing FMLN. A “general amnesty” was the only way to move the conflict from the battlefield to the ballot box, says Mauricio Ernesto Vargas, a retired general who represented the military in the peace talks. Today’s elected leaders, heirs to the left-wing guerrillas who waged war against the state, are equally nervous. The court’s decision threatens “the fragile coexistence in our society”, said the president, Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a former guerrilla commander. He later backtracked.

Human-rights advocates insist that peace never depended on impunity for the worst crimes. The agreements signed in Mexico in 1992 provided for a UN-appointed “truth commission” to investigate “grave acts of violence”, an idea copied by other countries trying to overcome decades of conflict, including South Africa. A National Reconciliation Law enacted that year granted amnesty for most war crimes but said that perpetrators of atrocities should be prosecuted. That law is unaffected by the court’s decision.

Its target is the more sweeping amnesty law passed a year later, after the truth commission issued a report accusing leaders from both sides of participating in massacres, assassinations, torture and other atrocities. That law violates both the constitution and human-rights treaties by declaring an “unrestricted, absolute and unconditional” amnesty, the court said. The government must investigate and punish “the material and intellectual authors of human-rights crimes”, which may include El Salvador’s most prominent politicians. It must also make reparations to victims. Though politicians are alarmed, the ruling “puts El Salvador on the path to reconciliation”, contends David Morales, the country’s human-rights ombudsman. He hopes that justice will heal the “open wounds” of victims’ families and help end a culture of impunity, one reason for the country’s horrific murder rate.

That thesis will be tested only if El Salvador’s prosecutors now pursue suspected war criminals. The decision falls to Douglas Meléndez, the attorney-general, who has shown an independent streak, for example by charging corrupt mayors in both parties. So far, he has not made it clear that he intends to prosecute war criminals.

The supreme court’s ruling is a sign that El Salvador’s judiciary is eager to assert its independence of both political parties. If Mr Meléndez takes up its invitation to prosecute civil-war-era crimes, that separation of powers will become more pronounced. El Salvador’s decision will be watched by other countries trying to settle longstanding conflicts, including Colombia, which is poised to end a 52-year war with the FARC, a left-wing guerrilla group. A belated pursuit of justice would force Salvadoreans to relive the horrors of the 1980s and remind them of the bloody origins of the main political parties. Some will ask whether amnesty and impunity were too high a price to pay for peace.

Already signed up or a subscriber? Log in

You’ve reached your article limit

Sign up to keep reading or subscribe now to get full access to The Economist via print, online and our apps.